Pierson v. Conley
Michigan Supreme Court
Appeal from Tuscola. (Beach, J.) Bill for partition. Defendant’appeals. The facts are stated in the opinion, and in Semis v. Conley, ante, 617.
1Opinion of the CourtGrant, J.
Complainant has title by conveyance and by inheritance to 34-36 of the S. W. £ of the S. E. ■£ of section 36, township 13 N., range 8 E., and defendant’ is the owner of the remaining 1-35. In like manner the complainant also is the owner .in fee-simple of 1-7 of the W. 1-8 of the S. 'E. \ of the S. E. J of the same section, and also has a life-estate in 34-35 thereof, and the defendant is the owner of the remaining 1-35. Complainant, being in possession, filed her bill in equity for partition, and for an order restraining defendant from interfering with her possession of the property.
In 1867…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Campau v. CampauMichigan Supreme Court · 1880
3Cited by8 opinions
- Stephenson v. GoldenMichigan Supreme Court · 1937
- Moore v. HarjoCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1944
- Fuller v. SwensbergMichigan Supreme Court · 1895
- Detroit, Lansing & Northern Railroad v. McCammonMichigan Supreme Court · 1896
- Rothschild v. DickinsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1912
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.